Re: The future of SACRED

Hi Magnus and Stephen,

I apologize for not getting back to you sooner on this -- I've been out of town
much of the last month so have not been able to follow up on this.

I'd like to see the protocol document progress to standards track status.  I
believe there's real value in a standardized, general purpose secure credential
exchange capability that can be implemented in a wide range of internet devices.

I was only able to take a brief look at the latest revision and jot down a few
comments.  I'll revisit those and send to the list if there's anything of
substance in them.  I recall that this latest revision appeared to backtrack on
several important technical issues (capabilities that some of us had articulated
earlier reappeared albeit somewhat unexpectedly  :-).

Net-net, I believe the latest revision of the protocol document is a substantial
improvement over the previous and would like to see it driven to completion.
FWIW, I also think it might help if the rationale behind recent changes that
appear to be driven by parallel work in W3's XKMS area were more fully explained
to the group.  Without a little more background information, it may be difficult
for many/most to provide meaningful comments.

Best Regards,

Dale Gustafson
Future Foundation Inc.
+1 651 452-9033 office
+1 218 343-9724 mobile


Magnus Nystrom wrote:

> Dear WG,
>
> A second version of SACRED's protocol I-D was posted about four weeks
> ago. To date, we have received only one comment on this draft. The
> first version received very limited feedback too, which brought us to
> ask, at the IETF in London, whether we have a broad enough
> constituency to continue the work towards a standards-track document.
>
> Given the continued low level of interaction on the mailing list, we
> would therefore once again like to ask those of you who are interested
> in developing a standards track protocol to step forward and
> express your interest and willingness to contribute to the quality
> of the solution. We feel that we would need this support from a
> reasonable number of independent members of the group in order to
> continue the work towards a standards-track RFC. If we don't get this
> confirmation, our plan is to move the SACRED protocol document to
> experimental track RFC sometime early next year (after a WG last
> call).
>
> Please send an email to the list before the IETF meeting in SLC (and
> better yet include your comments on the current draft), so that we
> know at the meeting whether the main topic to discuss is WG status or
> the comments on the protocol draft.
>
> Best regards,
> -- Magnus and Stephen